skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I didn't say that they were not declared. You can have proper, type-checked and runtime enforceable interfaces, without having to inherit from them.
Don’t know why you are being downvoted. What you said is exactly what’s happening, and what always happens.

When the “free market” moves against the people in power that control it, they exert their power and reign it in.

Why aren’t regulators stepping in to stop Robinhood and all the other brokers who are manipulating the market by blocking their own customers?

Edit: and I guess people reading this don’t like it. Would love a reply with a reason why though.
> "This isn't investing, this is gambling"

Yep. Agreed. Spot-on. That's what Wall St does. If you don't like it, try and stop it. But for everyone, including the hedge funds.

Treating the derivatives markets like a casino (and taxing appropriately) sounds like a great idea.
> Why wouldn't someone be allowed to lend out a security they own to someone else?

Can you explain what individual or company can own 140% of available shares?
AOC considering hearing over RobinhoodApp decision to block purchasers of GME
The next week, the cleaner returned. The monk offered him the book again, whereupon the cleaner held out his trash bag, that he might toss it in. At this moment, the monk was enlightened.
> The next time someone claims that starting startups is for rich kids, remind them that Airbnb happened because its founders literally could not pay their rent.

Starting startups is not just for rich kids. But it is dominated by rich kids to an extreme that Paul Graham is completely blind to, living in the bubble he has his whole life.

Depending on your definition of rich, of course. Most of the benefit is being in the upper class, that's what "rich" means to people living in the lower classes. To upper class people, being "rich" means having a private jet.

Almost every major tech founder fits the profile of having had the benefit of SAT prep and tutors to game entry into an "elite" school and parents able to provide free food/shelter/funding. Many parents have connections to draw upon.

Steve Jobs is one of the very few exceptions. And, to my mind, it's not a surprise that he's the best tech founder that ever will be.

Airbnb founder Nathan Blecharczyk was definitely a rich kid.

"He grew up in an upper-middle-class family in Boston, Massachusetts. He attended Boston Latin Academy."

"He was also on the business staff of The Harvard Crimson during his time at Harvard."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Blecharczyk

The others maybe not. It's hard to know how much money a family has. But they moved to SF and rented an expensive apartment with no jobs. This isn't something most poor kids do. Who co-signed their lease, given that they had no income? Likely it was a parent ready to bail them out if they ran out of credit cards.
Ok, so, there's a concert by <insert favourite musician> in 4 weeks.

Tickets are sold at 100$. But the show is extremely popular, so the tickets are traded, and the price shoots up to 300$. You think the price is still going to go higher, so you buy a ticket for 300$. The price goes up to 400$, you sell the ticket, and you made 100$. (You were long, and the price went up - you made money.)

Now, the price goes to 5000$. You think, well, that's way too much - you're sure the price is coming down. So, what to do? Well, your friend Mike is going to go to the concert, he has a ticket, and he wants to keep it. He doesn't care what the price is, he's going to the concert. So, you say, listen, Mike, can I have the ticket for a week or so? I'll give it back before the concert. He says, sure, and hands you the ticket.

You go and sell the ticket for $5000. A week later the ticket price has come down to a more reasonable $4000. So, you go buy a ticket for $4000, and hand it back to Mike. You received $5000, spent $4000, and made $1000, because you were short, and the price went down.

That's the basic mechanic of short selling.

Now, assume the price is going up though. The price could go up to $100000. The date of the concert is coming closer. Mike wants his ticket back. Dang, you have to go out and buy the bloody ticket for $100000. You lost your shirt, because the price went up while you were short a ticket.

Ok, price is back at $5000. You think the price is going to fall, and want to short. You put an ad in the paper saying that you have a ticket to sell. Joe calls and wants to buy the ticket. However, Mike is out for lunch. You tell Joe to transfer the money, you'll mail him the ticket. When Mike comes back, you ask Mike to borrow the ticket. He might or might not give it to you - if he doesn't then you either have to buy it from someone else, or you're stiffing Joe.

That's a naked short.
I've never heard of it before now.
short squeeze could kick off tomorrow.

the days to close has fallen to 1.4 right now.
Honor CEO confirms Google services on future devices
> the creepy neighbor kid to do something on my guest network that will get me a visit from the cops

Think about it. Honestly, what are the odds of that? I'm sure the last time I got in my car (to get a coffee) it was 100x more risky than that (actually it was snowing, make it 1000x). And so what? They show up, I'd tell pull open their phones and connect to my network. I did nothing wrong, have at it wasting my tax dollars. After all is said and done in that 1-in-a-million incident, still less of my life wasted with than if I bothered with annoying WiFi passwords over these decades.

Your comment reminds me of my friends and family who keep their kids locked up (pre-COVID), depriving them of the opportunity to learn independence that I had growing up. Just like when I was a kid, there is no crime in my neighbor and yet people act like their kid will have a 10% chance of being kidnapped if they let him go to the local convenience store, when in reality the odds are closer to 1 in 100 million. Social media or local news has screwed up our society's ability to calculate risk/rewards.
And so there must have been an additional interest for the seller, in addition to making only a massive amount of cash off of the past week. I am curious about what other incentives they might have been offered to offload now, as opposed to next week.
Weird, my last recall would have been much easier as an OTA.
The endgame isn't about this specific instrument, but the pattern of market manipulation (hell, economy manipulation) which it represents in the context of leveraged short selling alongside a 'too big to fail' regulatory regime.

The endgame is to use collaborative economic force to push rent-seekers out.
At one time I had 137k Dogecoin, which was traded from leftover BTC after cashing out[0]. I picked Dogecoin solely because I could get 137k of them, which I think was worth about $20 at the time. Apparently that would be worth over $1k right now, but sadly I shoved it in a bter account and it is now lost. C'est la vie.

I still think cryptocurrencies are largely an experiment in the application of contemporary memetics to scam people, but I have to admit that said experiment has produced wildly more successful results so far than I had ever anticipated. The power behind the convergent desires of get-rich-quick schemers, true believers, conspiracy theorists, anarcho-capitalists, and complexity fetishists is a pretty terrible thing to behold. My prediction would be that this particular maneuver won't work because only just over one of those groups really have any interest in its success (believers and some schemers). Then again, all my other predictions about cryptocurrencies have been wrong so far.

[0] I took advantage of a hype cycle to make ~$1k. I kinda regret it because in a small way my greed-driven maneuver contributed to the current state of BTC and its ludicrous energy usage.
Robinhood now works for the Prince.
* Until observed
I f-ing hate these PR-approved statements by companies. Explain to me how these two sentences could be in the same statement:

> In light of recent volatility, we are restricting transactions for certain securities to position closing only, including $AAL, $AMC, $BB, $BBBY, $CTRM, $EXPR, $GME, $KOSS, $NAKD, $NOK, $SNDL, $TR, and $TRVG.

> We fundamentally believe that everyone should have access to financial markets.

Bullshit.

Edit: if you have a Robinhood account, you should close it today.
The problem with GME starts with the funds that managed to accumulate a 140% short interest in the stock.

Send those people to jail for illegally issuing unregistered shares of a security, or counterfeiting shares of a security, because everything that happened after that point is entirely their fault.

Alternatively, fine them $10B and issue it as a dividend to the shareholders that bought and held after Jan 1.
> Point of Fact: 68% of voters had never heard of the Hunter Laptop on election day.

Point of fact: that’s bullshit.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

---[begin quote]---

At the final presidential debate Donald Trump tried to land a blow on Democratic rival Joe Biden by suggesting that purported evidence from a laptop computer links him to alleged corrupt business dealings by his son, Hunter Biden.

[...] the results of a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll (conducted Oct 23-25) highlight the extent to which it has cut through to the voting public. More than three quarters (77%) of registered voters say they have heard at least a little about the story, with four in ten (39%) saying they had heard “a lot”.

---[end quote]---
(Jitsi Dev here)
Most of our customers are actually developers and that's how the service is intended. Hope this helps
Best interests means facilitating trades as best as possible, not trying to protect clients from their own trades. No broker is attempting to preserve your capital.

What they will do is protect their capital over yours by raising margin requirements and initiating special rules to limit their risk. They don't care if you blow up your account, as long as you don't owe them at the end.
Great, HN is going to be a boiler room now.

Setting my watch for about a week to see when dang decides that a rule against promoting specific stocks or options is necessary ...

(meanwhile, can somebody pump XLM so it becomes me worth working out how to cash out the freebie I got from keybase?)
In what way do you think it will matter? Can you be more specific?
> First, how can we make sure developers who build open source software are compensated for their work in a just way?

Honest question: isn't this a fundamental contradiction? If you are building a thing that by definition is given freely to anyone who wants to use it, how does compensation for that work become part of the formula? You can't be monetarily compensated for it, because you chose to give it away. There are other forms of compensation but that seems clearly not what we're talking about here. The author goes on to ask how you can build a business around open source? But isn't the answer that you can't? If its really open source then the software itself is not a business.

That, to me, seems consistent with the original idea of open source: that it was the cool things you could build with code, not the code itself, that had value. None of the iconic success stories in tech over the last decade have sold code, have they? They've built things on FOSS code that never existed before, and most of them have contributed a lot of FOSS code back. But they haven't sold databases, reverse proxies, and key/value stores, right? I've paid six-figure annual licenses to Oracle. Is that the world we're trying to preserve here?
I think you've gotta take selection effects into account. The deep comments section of the Nth Robinhood/Gamestop post is going to be disproportionately full of people who are unhappy with Robinhood and willing to believe lots of nasty things about them.
It most likely triggered the anti-flamewar protection, which downweighs threads that are too active. This mechanism was in place for a long time now.

Perhaps it's for the better. I'm addicted to following the #gamestonk debacle as it is, but I wouldn't want to see HN to look like /r/wallstreetbets. One or two threads on the front page are OK for me, and if they're being recycled quickly - that's even better, given the pace of development of this situation.
The lack of a 150% short interest on Dogecoin limits the extent to which it can go like the other one.
> And with the amount of government subsidy they have already received, they should be the last ones complaining about regulation.

You mean the same subsidies which currently give Tesla's GM-come-lately competitors a $10k pricing advantage on new car purchases?

Maybe that's the solution. Every time a competing car is sold, Tesla gets the subsidy instead of the maker. Then Tesla can use it to continue building out the supercharger network which everyone benefits from.

GM, Ford, VW, Toyota... these are multi-billion dollar companies, several of which have received massive subsidies from the US government themselves. Forcing Tesla to subsidize their myopic competitors as sort of perverted corporate tort in the US is crap.
Robinhood is in a tough position. Retail is going crazy for the stock because it seems like everyone else is, and is clearly not based on fundamentals. But what can Robinhood do? It’s possible the huge institutional shareholders have sold off their positions to main st and now they will get stuck holding the bag. Fidelity and Blackrock might have made $10B each from this runup while selling to these buyers. Most folks will have huge losses.

The WSB narrative is that it’s Melvin capital holding all of those short shares, and they want to stick it to them. But we don’t really know how many shares they actually hold, surely they aren’t 100% of the short interest. It will be very interesting once all this unwinds and we see who was holding what.
All they need to do is beat the current calls that mature this friday. There are an ungodly amount of shorts about to mature...

The big issue, is that the shorts on GME surpass the total outstanding shares... Melvin went 140% short on GME and they should pay the price for that stupidity.
I don't think HN is as important as this is making it out to be
(Jitsi Dev here)
Yes you are correct. Cookie delete is indeed something that would trigger a new user count. So far we haven't seen this happen but if you believe your users would be massively cleaning cookies, we are happy to have a conversation and find a work around for you.
Nobody is “outwitting” Wall Street here. That will become particularly apparent in the coming days.

I’ve read posts on /r/WSB where people talk about having put all of their savings into this.

I only hope that they’re just teenagers with little savings.
How are defining ‘financial stability’ here?
Existing investors only get paid when they sell. As soon as they sell they're out of the game. There is no 'perpetually' in this scenario.

Where it can continue to rise is where there are those holding short positions that need to buy shares to cover those positions. They can only buy at a price the seller agrees, and in a short squeeze situation the seller can demand pretty much any price they want (in theory)
I always thought Google missed a perfect opportunity when they released Google+, they should have created a new open protocol for social media instead of another platform, something like RSS feeds for blogs. Then people could host their "pages" anywhere they want and still own their own data. The protocol would allow the aggregation of comments, likes etc. Google has a vested interest in keeping the web open to protect their indexing/search business and they have the industry weight to force new standards. Instead of course they opted to create another platform...
>I don't know how some of these shorts will find 20 million shares by tomorrow.

you're confusing shorts with options. shorts don't expire. They can be held indefinitely as long as you have the margin to keep up with the losses.
I think the endgame is that it isn't perpetual: the final "investor" is the original short-seller.
This is my current nightmare. I’m writing firmware for a flash chip for a consumer product and I’m totally paranoid about getting into some situation that triggers enough writes to brick the item :(
Does it matter that your're underwater by 50%? The goal was to beat Wallstreet, They did.

The hedgefunds should definitely take note not to play a dangerous game because losing is always on the table.
This is the motto for 2021 so far.
Thank God. We have to remember that many of the people they are protecting are PoC.
Perhaps we can give the slaves feelings of profound happiness when they obey us. Requires some immense scientific and/or philosophical advances though.
I think there's a public/private divide here. You can use whatever language you want with people you know, because you know how they'll react and that it genuinely won't cause offence. In a public space though, I'd be wary. A black person walking past a group of white kids making racist jokes and using racial slurs is only going to make them feel less comfortable, even if the white kids genuinely mean no harm.
The T&Cs will almost certainly allow them a huge amount of latitude in what they will let people do with their platform.

Although if a decent amount of retail investors lose money as a result of not being able to sell stock they already own then the blood is in the water for a class action. Saul Goodman is waiting for your call!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Part of the "How are stories ranked?" section:

> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.

Notice the "overheated discussions" part. A lot of threads like this end up bumped off of front-page - it's not that visible unless it's something that you're specifically paying attention to.
Added to the substantial Alan Kay section of https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
Honest question: Was this an important host name?

From what I can see Perl the programming language has its home at perl.org, which is running fine. The .com does not show up prominently when googling for perl. Based on Google's cache it seems it was some kind of programming-related news page. Was it relevant/popular in the Perl community?
https://twitter.com/IBKR/status/1354792600004386818

"long stock positions will require 100% margin"
> Healthcare and Basic Income would do a lot to encourage entrepreneurship.

I have a dream that Healthcare will someday be decoupled from employment. So much waste is tolerated simply due to the fact that the majority of the expense is borne by your employer before the number they put on your paycheck.

I can live on a part time salary without issue, but health insurance, which is already $200/wk for my family with my employer chipping in, would jump to more like $600/wk, which is just completely untenable. There is no sane reason why health insurance should be my single largest expense each month.
I agree with the comment above yours, HN turned into Reddit for the last week.
Red Hat got VC money and went public working on open source software. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule of the difficulty, but not an oxymoron.
Reminds me of a newspaper writeup on a recentlyish murdered billionaire where the murderer is still on the loose, and one of the sons had a writeup about his alibis. One proof of his whereabouts was an iPhone picture of his crypto seed he took while in another country. Bad opsec, ugh.

The child was running a nothing special b&m chain business, but they had a “loan” from the billionaire to acquire and expand the business.

I’m like, okay, at least a loan has to be paid back.

Then half-way through the article, there’s a shareholder agreement involved and I’m like, it doesn’t even need to be paid back!!!!, ugh.

How is Joe Schmoe supposed to compete in a sector where the competition has that kind of financing?
They're using their profits to buy their competitors and downstream partners, which in UNH's case has allows their market cap to grow 10x in 10 years.

The 5% that you quote is after those acquisitions (and taxes) and is not a true indicator of profit.
Remember when Tesla, back in 2019, was featured in frequent news articles as doomed and failing, and there was even talk about replacing Elon because he was unstable? It was the same bullshit, some people wanted cheap Tesla stocks and went as far as buying misinformation-as-a-service.

Funny how starting 2020, Tesla was awesome and a solid investment again. I guess some people are too impatient to wait for stocks to bring profits the way they were meant to.
Also the front doors on the current 3 & Y.
Try this: https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/tree/tests

It is a complete GUI with full state management and the browser part of the application is very tiny.
Nope! The price only has to stay high until eob Fiday when ~20 million shorts expire and have to be covered by the stupidly inflated price. Then the price will tank and those with short positions will be holding the bag.
Release founder here, Regis does a great job explaining what we're up to at Release in this podcast. We're looking to hire more great engineers like regis. https://releaseapp.io/company
Yep. We had a PR for a single character typo. The submitter went to a lot of trouble, but the burden to the project really was as small as could be. No discussion, no open issue, just a PR with a one liner that could be reviewed in seconds and accepted with a click. Any other process would have been more work for the maintainers.
sure, but what's the point of complaining about it? if enough people flag it will go away. so just flag and move on.
I think the main difference apart from syntax and lack of higher order functionality is that with elm you have to embrace the language restrictions and not try to fight them.

The lack of advanced features can be frustrating for an experienced haskell dev but it forces the api's to be simpler and more approachable.

So the major thing to be wary of is the change in mindset one has to go through.
Maintaining healthy communities is, unfortunately, a human endeavor. Tools can help, but they cannot do it for us.
The DAO was a very extraordinary event that occurred under very unique and unrepeatable circumstances.

1. Ethereum had just launched. There was a sense of everything being in beta.

2. The Ethereum stakeholder set was very small, so obtaining consensus for such a controversial hard fork was much easier to accomplish than it would be today.

3. The economy on Ethereum was very small, so

a) a hard fork was far less disruptive than it would be today.

b) an undermining of Ethereum's commitment to neutrality/immutability jeapardized far fewer decentralized application projects than it would today.

4. Smart contracts were completely new, so there was a sense that people could be forgiven for their mistakes.

5. The Ethereum Foundation had promoted the idea of a DAO on their website, and several Ethereum founders had promoted the specific DAO that ended up being hacked. These facts made the DAO appear to be more than a completely third party app.

Ethereum is very different today than it was in 2016, and a DAO-like mishap would never lead to a hard fork again.
> everyone who bought yesterday is fighting exchanges whose only option for GME is "sell" because buying is restricted

I can’t really understand how the exchange is saying “no, you’re not allowed to buy, but you can sell all you want” is legal.
Indeed, this is a class-action suit. I don't have high hopes of the perpetrators getting jailed, but at least it's all out in the open now that the little guy shouldn't be able to win.
I don't think I've ever seen one, and I live in one of the largest US cities. Granted, I'm sure they're around, and I'm not carefully looking for them, but they're far from ubiquitous around here.
Schrödinger's stock price